Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A question please. Those of you with neighborhood parks. Are they maintained by HOA? Would the HOA be liable if something horrible happened in the park?
We have a little play area next to our neighborhood swimming pool and it has a sign about no unattended children. It is not fenced in but of course the swimming pool is and our HOA maintains it. We pay a fortune in liability insurance and am wondering about neighborhood parks.
Does your public park have any sign about "Not responsible for unattended children"? As litigious as our society is I would think any municipality which owns and maintains a public park would try to protect themselves in some way.
Our neighborhood parks are also maintained by the town, no HOAs. One of the reasons we like our town is that each "development" has a unique park tucked away within walking distance (in addition to the larger community parks). For us, going to the neighborhood park is literally the same thing as letting our kids play "on the block." Everyone knows the regulars, we all know each others' kids and pets, etc.
Our signs just have open/close hours and suggested age range for kids using the playground equipment, no liability info. The ballfields and courts are open to everyone unless there is a game or team practice.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 05-18-2012 at 04:28 PM..
Yes, it does matter and way to evade the question.
Maybe I "evaded" your question (Really, I answered it sarcastically) for the same reason I won't be taking my son at age 8 and leaving him at a park unattended, because there's no point to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
You need to keep records to retrieve a memory of something from growing up?
A memory of the specific age at which I was allowed to venture forth unattended, yes. I was far too busy having fun to pay attention to what age I was when my mom first let me play at the park without an adult being there. As I said earlier, it didn't matter and doesn't today. Why? Because what I was allowed to do and the fact that nothing bad came from it does not mean every kid will be just as lucky. It's a silly thing to bring up, because it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of any other parent (including myself) and the choices they make with their children.
How bout this...
What, specifically, is the harm in not letting an 8-year old kid play in the park with no adult supervision? Let's see if any of you can answer this without making unfounded assumptions or exaggerating.
26 pages worth of responses already? Good lord. What happened to the days when sending 8-year-olds out to play on their own was no more controversial than feeding them a ham sandwich when they came home at lunchtime?
A question please. Those of you with neighborhood parks. Are they maintained by HOA? Would the HOA be liable if something horrible happened in the park?
We have a little play area next to our neighborhood swimming pool and it has a sign about no unattended children. It is not fenced in but of course the swimming pool is and our HOA maintains it. We pay a fortune in liability insurance and am wondering about neighborhood parks.
Does your public park have any sign about "Not responsible for unattended children"? As litigious as our society is I would think any municipality which owns and maintains a public park would try to protect themselves in some way.
In my neighborhood growing up there was basically one park. It was maintained by the township. It probably doesn't quite match what most picture a park to be...there was a small play set with limited equipment. The rest of the park is actually a lake, with a few picnic tables and a lot of open space. So we weren't playing just playing unsupervised at the park, we were playing unsupervised near water!
If we wanted to play on actual equipment, we just walked up the elementary school. Neither places had signs of any kind. I was there recently and not much has changed. The equipment is more modern (I miss the big iron circus wagon they used to have!)
We actually played the most either on the block or in the woods behind the school. There was a narrow strip of woods with a stream running through it. We would play ghost in the graveyard and other games back there. I'm sure we got hurt from time to time (I can remember a friend running head first into a metal pole while playing and cutting his scalp pretty good), but nobody sued anybody.
What, specifically, is the harm in not letting an 8-year old kid play in the park with no adult supervision? Let's see if any of you can answer this without making unfounded assumptions or exaggerating.
Does it have to be about an eight-year-old? I already said I wasn't sure about that age, but I have a general response. The harm would be risks of increased suspicion and fear of the outside world, decreased self-reliance, and decreased imagination and ability to self-entertain.
Maybe I "evaded" your question (Really, I answered it sarcastically) for the same reason I won't be taking my son at age 8 and leaving him at a park unattended, because there's no point to it.
A memory of the specific age at which I was allowed to venture forth unattended, yes. I was far too busy having fun to pay attention to what age I was when my mom first let me play at the park without an adult being there. As I said earlier, it didn't matter and doesn't today. Why? Because what I was allowed to do and the fact that nothing bad came from it does not mean every kid will be just as lucky. It's a silly thing to bring up, because it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of any other parent (including myself) and the choices they make with their children.
How bout this...
What, specifically, is the harm in not letting an 8-year old kid play in the park with no adult supervision? Let's see if any of you can answer this without making unfounded assumptions or exaggerating.
I can't answer for every kid. I know I would have been harmed. I would have missed out on adventures I couldn't have had if my playtime had been restricted to when my parents were able to supervise. My level of physical activity would have been reduced for the same reason. My interactions with friends would have been different because of the audience and I would have missed out on conflict resolution and other social skills. As a naturally shy child, I would have likely absorbed my parent's fears and been more afraid to venture out without supervision in general. And I most definitely would have missed out on a great deal of completely alone, which to me were very valuable times. I have memories of walking home by myself and listening to the mourning doves call, and those times were precious to me. It was a break from parents and friends, and time alone in nature without distractions
And none of that addresses the point that this question is the same as asking "what is the harm in NOT taking your child to the zoo?" Or "what is the harm in NOT having a dog?" Maybe there's no harm at all, or at least no harm that can be quantified and measured. So why don't we ask these questions? Why are things that are of greater threat to children socially acceptable?
I see both sides of this. In our old neighborhood in CA, there was a neighborhood park with a horrible reputation. There have been two homicides there that I know of (granted late at night), homeless people sleeping there and needles found on a regular basis. I wouldn't let a 12 yr old go there alone, let alone an 8 yr old.
Contrast that to our current neighborhood park in IL. It is right next to a fire station where a cop is usually in the parking lot chatting with the firefighters. The crime stats are almost non-existent. I've never gone there and not known at least one of the parents. It's a very tight-knit community, very similar to how I grew up. I would feel very safe if my son was still 8 with him going there with friends.
So, I think a lot depends on your own perception of "neighborhood park". (Of course, some of you really are helicopter parents in denial)
The harm would be risks of increased suspicion and fear of the outside world, decreased self-reliance, and decreased imagination and ability to self-entertain.
I don't see any of these things as risks coming directly from being there whenever your child is at the park. A kid might just attribute you being there to your own desire to be there, not protection. I know I don't remember giving it any thought at all. It never occurred to me to ask why my mom was always there with me. It was just the way we did it. If you encourage kids to be social in other ways, they may come to learn that most people are good-hearted and reasonably kind either way.
I think letting them play on their own at the park will suffice to build self-reliance, an imagination, and the ability to entertain themselves. While letting them be on their own is surely a good idea, it doesn't have to be at the park, imo.
JJCat! I appreciate your response. However, I don't see loss and harm as the same thing. Your memories would've been different. But there's no way of concluding that you would've actually been worse off. I have memories of walking home alone which I consider precious as well, but they are from adolescence and early adulthood. So I disagree that you know you would've been harmed, necessarily, by missing out on alone time at the park. If someone's parents are afraid and suspicious of the world, that's likely to rub off on their children no matter what. But if someone's parents are generally confident, social, and trusting; their kids are likely to pick that up as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat
Why are things that are of greater threat to children socially acceptable?
I don't know how else to say it. Some risks are considered unreasonable because a person believes they can reach the same end goal without them. I believe my son will have a blast at the park with or without me there, so I might as well be there. I believe he will learn social skills, how to be independent, how to be trusting, etc. without being left unattended at a public place as a young child. So I might as well be there.
Really, it depends on the kid and where you live. I live in a place where I would feel comfortable doing it. My child, however, wasn't ready to do it at 8; he wouldn't have wanted to be left alone.
I recall that at 8 I roamed the neighborhood freely and spent a lot of time at the park with other similar-aged kids....and there wasn't a parent in sight.
JJCat! I appreciate your response. However, I don't see loss and harm as the same thing. Your memories would've been different. But there's no way of concluding that you would've actually been worse off. I have memories of walking home alone which I consider precious as well, but they are from adolescence and early adulthood. So I disagree that you know you would've been harmed, necessarily, by missing out on alone time at the park. If someone's parents are afraid and suspicious of the world, that's likely to rub off on their children no matter what. But if someone's parents are generally confident, social, and trusting; their kids are likely to pick that up as well.
.
But I think the loss would have been a harm. I have the most incredible memories and I learned so much from running wild with my 'pack'. And even if my childhood would have merely been different and not better or worse, I don't personally feel that a 1% risk justifies the difference.
I also think the type of child matters, as does the family situation. I am sure we can agree that physical activity is important. Both of my parents worked, so if my outside play had to be supervised I would have had active play for only an hour or so a day. Because I was trusted to be unsupervised on my block, I had physical activity for up to eight hours a day, every day. If I had missed that, I think it would have done definite real harm.
(To be clear, my mother worked from home. So she was still available if I needed anything)
I also had five siblings, all of them older and four of them male. If I had been restricted indoors, I would have had to deal with them more. I don't mean they were cruel or anything of the sort...they weren't. But the pressures of six children of varying ages in a small house is something I was happy to escape from.
Also, my personality comes into it. As I said, time alone in a natural setting was absolutely precious to me. It would have done me harm to constantly be exposed to the noise and interactions of others. For my mental health I simply require 'me' time. A more boisterous or extroverted child might not have this requirement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
